The original hope was to encourage the thought of the appropriateness of collegiality as a general practice rather than to further the more common practice of some surveyors who feel they should re-enact the following example, with a survey twist, of course.
Holy Cow, post: 441950, member: 50 wrote: The original hope was to encourage the thought of the appropriateness of collegiality as a general practice rather than to further the more common practice of some surveyors who feel they should re-enact the following example, with a survey twist, of course.
So who are the "some surveyors"' that you believe need to become less snooty by your definition.
I thought that you created this thread to call out Kent. It didn't take long for the Caddo Surveyor to bite.
Then you vaguely and wrongly accused him of insulting someone years ago that was based on a misquote by you. No apology? Gee that's a bit snooty. Plus that ancient comment was mighty tame when compared to others way back when.
Remember MLB, Timmy and a host of others?
Posters go off the rails here at times and it is expected.
This is a discussion forum. Sometimes the discussions that become confrontational are the most rewarding as far as knowledge is cincerned.
The Kooper-Kent dialogues are an example.
Anyway carry on.
Robert Hill, post: 441965, member: 378 wrote: This is a discussion forum. Sometimes the discussions that become confrontational are the most rewarding as far as knowledge is cincerned.
The Kooper-Kent dialogues are an example.
I definitely agree, I would never in a thousand years (or even the next twenty) have imagined that there were some surveyors who are very adept at faking old stone survey markers in the way that Gene has previously described on numerous occasions. I'm sure it's just me, but somehow running some lichens through a blender with buttermilk and painting the resulting mess onto rocks of the sort suitable for survey markers just does not seem possible as something that any ethical surveyor would even consider doing. I'm not saying that it isn't the norm in Colorado, though.
The problem, as I see it, is that too many surveyors are willing to behave as Dan and Jane did in that little video when it comes to "discussing" surveying. Each one knows they are absolutely right and the other surveyor is absolutely wrong. There is no middle ground. When the general public offers the suggestion that they can't believe any two surveyors will ever arrive at the same answer to the same problem the surveying profession should recognize that fact and attempt to make appropriate changes. When the public feels they cannot trust any of us why should they call on us for help unless forced to do so.
As for the midget in the corner thing, I said, "Who was who in the matter has been forgotten". That was and is the truth. Although Kent appears to have dug out the original post, which he may have amended to suit himself, I don't recall that he specifically claimed to be the one who made the comment towards Ty many years ago. Also, I was thinking it might have been spur4$ that was being chastised. He was another rodeoing surveyor who once participated with us way back when.
Holy Cow, post: 441984, member: 50 wrote: The problem, as I see it, is that too many surveyors are willing to behave as Dan and Jane did in that little video when it comes to "discussing" surveying. Each one knows they are absolutely right and the other surveyor is absolutely wrong.
Who are the "too many"?
You're skating around the real
Issue here.
The old antiquated SNL clip has no relavence. ONCE again, I really don't see that much of a problem here.
For a site that has minimal moderation, the decorum is very fine. Yes, there are jabs and punches thrown in discussions but nothing resembles bullying or malicious behavior.
If you see a problem with the tenor of someone's remarks than tune out unless you want to appoint yourself moderator by being a leading supporter, sponsor and uber poster.
You don't get it, Robert. This site is a tiny slice of the whole land surveying pie. I was referring initially to the big picture. Others turned it into an internal battle.
There is too much of this in general between surveyors. Have you not noticed this in all of your own experiences over the years?
This negativity between ourselves tears down the profession and awakens the general public to reasons why we should not be trusted to help them.
A big part of why the public does not trust anyone in the real estate world stems from the same type of behavior there where it is common for one agent to demean another publicly. Do we really want to be thought of in the same light?
Sure, we learn to "play nice" when bumping into others face to face at continuing education programs and state society meetings, but that's about the only place too many behave in a collegial manner. Those in the general public don't get to witness that. What they witness is one surveyor badmouthing others while making corrections to the earlier surveyors' obvious shortcomings.
Here is an excerpt from the initial post of this thread:
"Collegiality is the relationship between colleagues. Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. A colleague is an associate in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office."
Those who work in the PLSS must learn to understand that we are "united in a common purpose" as we work within the fabric that was supposedly created by some means by the Government surveyors (contractor or otherwise) many decades earlier. That is not a poke at any other survey system, it is merely the reality with which we work in PLSSia.
The initial post was aimed at all surveyors, including myself, to keep ourselves aware of our own behavior. It was not aimed at certain participants here, but some recognized themselves and took offense. That's their problem, not mine.
Holy Cow, post: 441999, member: 50 wrote: You don't get it, Robert.
There is too much of this in general between surveyors. Have you not noticed this in all of your own experiences over the years?
This negativity between ourselves tears down the profession and awakens the general public to reasons why we should not be trusted to help them.
A big part of why the public does not trust anyone in the real estate world stems from the same type of behavior there where it is common for one agent to demean another publicly. Do we really want to be thought of in the same light?
Sure, we learn to "play nice" when bumping into others face to face at continuing education programs and state society meetings, but that's about the only place too many behave in a collegial manner. Those in the general public don't get to witness that. What they witness is one surveyor badmouthing others while making corrections to the earlier surveyors' obvious shortcomings.
No. I don't see the sky is falling as you claim. You have no arguement except conjectures that you have formed.
State some specific example that bothering you. You frequently badmouthed Surveyors here who have 'trespassed' into your locale.
ONCE again, your post was transparent.
I remember well the day that photo was taken. It was Easter Sunday and I was returning to my daughter's house from the sunrise service.
Holy Cow, post: 442018, member: 50 wrote: I remember well the day that photo was taken. It was Easter Sunday and I was returning to my daughter's house from the sunrise service.
Pink is definitely your color.
Robert Hill, post: 441965, member: 378 wrote: This is a discussion forum. Sometimes the discussions that become confrontational are the most rewarding as far as knowledge is cincerned.
The Kooper-Kent dialogues are an example.
Anyway carry on.
Why thank you Robert. I do try to be civil in my dialogues with Kent. By that I mean I try to attack his opinion(s) rather than him personally. I also find it appropriate to only post when I am in a congenial pleasant mood and have the time for omphaloskeptic musing.
Kent McMillan, post: 441973, member: 3 wrote: I definitely agree, I would never in a thousand years (or even the next twenty) have imagined that there were some surveyors who are very adept at faking old stone survey markers in the way that Gene has previously described on numerous occasions. I'm sure it's just me, but somehow running some lichens through a blender with buttermilk and painting the resulting mess onto rocks of the sort suitable for survey markers just does not seem possible as something that any ethical surveyor would even consider doing. I'm not saying that it isn't the norm in Colorado, though.
Well, nice to see we are on a first name basis. And I see that you haven't forgotten one of your past barbs directed at me regarding the artificial aging of stone survey markers with lichenated buttermilk. Now, others know why I questioned your practice of rebuilding stone mounds with the patenated side of each stone facing up so as to mimic what an ancient, undisturbed stone mound should look like. As folks may recall, the rationale you proposed as an endorsement of the practice was that it provides examples to young surveyors as to what an old stone mound should look like without their actually finding one. That way, as their careers advance they will be able to discern in their narrative aside whether the stone mound is ancient and undisturbed or an Edwards Limestone statuary sculpted by KMcM and uniquely numbered on a decorative pin and cap precisely located at the centroid of the mound statuary. To aid the casual surveyor, reference can then be made to Mr. McMillan's, stone mound catalogue raisonn??. I believe the title is, "Stone Mounds I Have Pinned and Dimpled"
My first experience with utilizing the lichen cover on rocks was in Huerfano County, Colorado on the east side of the Sangre de Cristos and northwest of Walsenburg. The setting was geology field camp and the week-long exercise was to map the areal extents and determine the relative ages of glacial deposits and landforms (i.e. morraines, fluvial terraces, and outwash fans and plains). Dating morrainal deposits was complicated because the field geologist must determine whether the lichen growth occurred on stable deposits or whether after initial deposition, a mass wasting process was responsible for a "younger look" for the morraine's age because the movement had turned the stones over, thereby resetting the clock so to speak.
As for my survey work, I have found it valuable to look at lichen growth on rocks in slopes and scree slopes as a qualitative measure of the movement of rocks and potentially the stone monuments I am tasked with finding. While this qualitative evaluation is important, it cannot replace the necessity of quantifying the movement. In other words, just because the record information indicates that a stone monument has moved downslope, as a surveyor I cannot accept this is true without quantitative proof of the movement. For example, over the course of several years I have noted the movement of stones in a scree slope so that I am able to calculate their velocity down the fall line of the slope.
A narrative aside: I hope this meets HC's congeniality criteria for this thread. 🙂
Hee, hee,hee.
